306 replies to this topic

[krazeeboi]

For me, it's not so much about it being a Walmart per se and I'm not saying that the ballpark should be saved. It's all about the pitiful, suburban design. Your recommendation would be a big step in the right direction IMO.

[vicupstate]

While this is not too far from the southern-most original city limit, THIS is NOT the core, nor it is particularly close to the core.   This parcel is 1-2 miles from the Main Street core.


The ONLY reason Walmart is having to kiss the city's ring is because they own the land.  Walmart can pick a parcel within a few feet of this one, and build a typical super center without any city approvals.  The neighorhood would not be able to stop it.  I haven't delved into the Richland Zoning code, but generally commercial development is allowed in an industrial zone.


How many strip centers have multi-level parking? How many shopping areas have multi-level parking in ALL of Columbia?  Richland Mall is the only one that comes to my mind.  The parking is totally interior to the site, and it provides walkability to the neighborhood and significant green space.  McBee Station in Greenville has the same multi-level parking structure.

I would like to see an additional use added to the Olympia Walmart plan, but the market for either residential or office is very weak and/or nonexistant in that area.  

Parking garages are very expensive, $10-20 k PER space.  Do the math and multiply that out.  The economics don't work except in very dense, urban, very expensive land cost situations.  That is the polar OPPOSITE of Olympia. A struggling, economically deprived area that will remain that way, if totally unrealistic expectations are placed on any potential development.  

The Mayor should sit down with Walmart and negotiate a better project, that he will put his political capital behind.  That is what Joe Riley would do, and Benjamin doesn't need a change in the city charter to do the same.   Instead, what will probably happen is 1) Walmart will build on a different parcel that is in the city, but isn't owed by the city OR 2) build nearby in RIchland County.

[krazeeboi]

Olympia is an intown neighborhood, adjacent to the core. Development has steadily been spreading down that way (USC Greek Village, Aspyre, etc.) and is becoming more of a southern extension of the core.

Again, "multi-level parking" is a big misnomer. It's really just elevated surface parking and isn't some big game-changing element relative to other lifestyle centers/glorified strip malls.

Bad design, bad architecture, bad project. And saying "they'll just do it somewhere else so let this one pass" is a piss poor excuse for poor urban development IMO.

[growingup15]

The more they pass up the more company won't come to Columbia. and then later they will complaining about why there is no jobs growth in the city.

Simple answer you shouldn't passes up so many oppertunities.

[vicupstate]

krazeeboi, on 23 December 2011 - 08:36 PM, said:

Olympia is an intown neighborhood, adjacent to the core. Development has steadily been spreading down that way (USC Greek Village, Aspyre, etc.) and is becoming more of a southern extension of the core.

Again, "multi-level parking" is a big misnomer. It's really just elevated surface parking and isn't some big game-changing element relative to other lifestyle centers/glorified strip malls.

Bad design, bad architecture, bad project. And saying "they'll just do it somewhere else so let this one pass" is a piss poor excuse for poor urban development IMO.

The only way a parking garage is built on this site or anywhere in Olympia is if the city or county pay for it, or most of it. That is whether Walmart builds, Target or Neiman Marcus.  The economics of a pivate garage only work if you are talking about a 500,000 + sf mall.   That is NOT going to happen.

The multi-level parking is the same structure as McBee Station, which everyone raves about.  The only difference is the Walmart one is LARGER and providess MORE parking.  

As for the architetcure, how is this architecture any different from Village at Sand Hills?  It would be the most expensive 'architecture' in all of Olympia, that for sure.

You have to live in reality, this is not Buckhead. Olympia can improve, and this project ( with some reasonable adjustments) is the catalyst for improvement.  If you block it, you stifle the community's potential. The unwelcome sign will be out and the development world will look elsewhere, especially considering this area is not on their map to begin with for the most part.

[growingup15]

vicupstate, on 28 December 2011 - 07:45 AM, said:

The only way a parking garage is built on this site or anywhere in Olympia is if the city or county pay for it, or most of it. That is whether Walmart builds, Target or Neiman Marcus.  The economics of a pivate garage only work if you are talking about a 500,000 + sf mall.   That is NOT going to happen.

The multi-level parking is the same structure as McBee Station, which everyone raves about.  The only difference is the Walmart one is LARGER and providess MORE parking.  

As for the architetcure, how is this architecture any different from Village at Sand Hills?  It would be the most expensive 'architecture' in all of Olympia, that for sure.

You have to live in reality, this is not Buckhead. Olympia can improve, and this project ( with some reasonable adjustments) is the catalyst for improvement.  If you block it, you stifle the community's potential. The unwelcome sign will be out and the development world will look elsewhere, especially considering this area is not on their map to begin with for the most part.

Thank you thank you and again thank you. you are 100% right. but you know what the problem is for Columbian's Change. they are afraid of it. im surpirsed the Innovista and Bull street project even start as they did. why this is so different now.

This Small walmart is no different from all the other projects being brought up in the Olympia Community now.

[Spartan]

krazeeboi, on 21 December 2011 - 05:43 PM, said:

Here's a sketch and site plan of the proposed development:

krazeeboi, on 23 December 2011 - 04:12 PM, said:

For me, it's not so much about it being a Walmart per se and I'm not saying that the ballpark should be saved. It's all about the pitiful, suburban design. Your recommendation would be a big step in the right direction IMO.

Exactly.

growingup15, on 25 December 2011 - 08:33 AM, said:

The more they pass up the more company won't come to Columbia. and then later they will complaining about why there is no jobs growth in the city.

Simple answer you shouldn't passes up so many oppertunities.

That is absolutely false. Columbia is a large enough city that people want to do business there. Saying no to a bad site design is completely different than saying no to a company.

I think it's interesting to compare this to the Five Points South project where there was some resident opposition. It will be interesting to see how this process compares to that one, being that one of the main differences is that Shandon is not next door.

vicupstate, on 28 December 2011 - 07:45 AM, said:

As for the architetcure, how is this architecture any different from Village at Sand Hills?  It would be the most expensive 'architecture' in all of Olympia, that for sure.

You have to live in reality, this is not Buckhead. Olympia can improve, and this project ( with some reasonable adjustments) is the catalyst for improvement.  If you block it, you stifle the community's potential. The unwelcome sign will be out and the development world will look elsewhere, especially considering this area is not on their map to begin with for the most part.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are a lot of good points being thrown around here.

The root of the problem, IMO, is not the stacked parking lot/deck. I applaud the reduction of impervious surface and more compact parking lot design, even if it is the same amount as a typical suburban walmart.

The site plan, while not generic, is very suburban in style due to it's focus on cars. While Olympia is not a dense urban environment, any new projects need to be made pedestrian friendly.

• The site's side driveways should line up with the street grid.
  
• Buffers are one of the biggest suburban design "treatment" that exists.
  
• The sites buildings should have entrances that acknowledge the existing street grid, and they should not be so poorly designed that the residents wouldn't want to look at them.
  
• Pedestrians were clearly an afterthought in this design. There should be both more and better connections to the streets in this design.
  
• Who wants to drive to the second floor to go to a store?
  
• The comparison to VAS is apt, though I would point out that despite VAS's flaws, it still lines up stores with varying setbacks at different architectural styles such that it appears more like a main street than conventional suburban development.

This site is not large enough to have a true mixed use development, but that doesn't mean it has to ignore the pedestrian. By lining up the buildings to wrap the deck with buildings and line the storefronts up to face the so-called "natural area" (and turn it into a small park) you would activate that space, give the neighborhood a place they can be proud of, and still provide the functionality that a walmart site needs to have.

I think that if this site is constructed as is, you will see 95% of cars jockeying for spaces on the lower level. Walmart parking lots are always overbuilt, and people are incredibly lazy. At least by creating a park, you might have a restaurant or something open up there that might encourage people to use the space for more than suburban shopping.

Also, this is going to be a nightmare on game days.